Water changes or not

[fishytoo]

The fact is changing water maybe helpful in a crisis, however if all you levels are good there isn’t any indication to change water. In fact changing water and adding supplements which are not 100% pure unless the supplier is willing to provide a certificate of conformance. You may be introducing ppm of unwanted components that will build up over time. My determination is that if all the levels are good then why adds something that you are not aware of its purity. Just run carbon and a calcium reactor.

[SantaCruzReefer]

Not another one. :rolleyes:

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There are some corrections that cannot be made any way other than a water change, and that assumes you could test for and supplement anything potentially needed, which you cannot, or export anything that builds up undesirably, which you cannot.

I discuss water changes here:

Water Changes in Reef Aquaria
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php


from it:

Conclusion
Water changes are a good way to help control certain processes that serve to drive reef aquarium water away from its starting purity. Some things build up in certain situations (organics, certain metals, sodium, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate, etc.), and some things become depleted (calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, strontium, silica, etc.). Water changes can serve to help correct these imbalances, and in some cases may be the best way to deal with them. Water changes of 15-30% per month (whether carried out once a month, daily or continuously) have been shown in the graphs above to be useful in moderating the drift of these different seawater components from starting levels. For most reef aquaria, I recommend such changes as good aquarium husbandry. In general, the more the better, if carried out appropriately, and if the new salt water is of appropriate quality.

Calcium and alkalinity, being rapidly depleted in most reef aquaria, are not well controlled, or even significantly impacted by such small water changes. In order to maintain them with no other supplements, changes on the order of 30-50% PER DAY would be required. Nevertheless, that option may still be a good choice for very small aquaria, especially if the changes are slow and automatic.

[fishytoo]

Run a chromatography on the water and the supplements (reagent). The fact is any supplement that is being introduced isn’t pure so of course you would need to change the water and reduce the unwanted components. It is a waste to add some reagent and remove it. Run macro with a protein skimmer on low and extract non benefit components from the tank. I suggest you provide a chemical reason why it is necessary. The numbers are what they are.

[fishytoo]

Run a chromatography on the water and the supplements (reagent). The fact is any supplement that is being introduced isn’t pure so of course you would need to change the water and reduce the unwanted components. It is a waste to add some reagent and remove it. Run macro with a protein skimmer on low and extract non benefit components from the tank. I suggest you provide a chemical reason why it is necessary. The numbers are what they are.

Indicate to me what is being extracted in a 20% or larger water change and what is being gained by introducing new salt water that cannot be added? Do the math 20% is reducing how much of what?

[vitodog]

Not another one. :rolleyes:

LOL:spin2:

[fishytoo]

There are some corrections that cannot be made any way other than a water change, and that assumes you could test for and supplement anything potentially needed, which you cannot, or export anything that builds up undesirably, which you cannot.

I discuss water changes here:

Water Changes in Reef Aquaria
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php


from it:

Conclusion
Water changes are a good way to help control certain processes that serve to drive reef aquarium water away from its starting purity. Some things build up in certain situations (organics, certain metals, sodium, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate, etc.), and some things become depleted (calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, strontium, silica, etc.). Water changes can serve to help correct these imbalances, and in some cases may be the best way to deal with them. Water changes of 15-30% per month (whether carried out once a month, daily or continuously) have been shown in the graphs above to be useful in moderating the drift of these different seawater components from starting levels. For most reef aquaria, I recommend such changes as good aquarium husbandry. In general, the more the better, if carried out appropriately, and if the new salt water is of appropriate quality.

Calcium and alkalinity, being rapidly depleted in most reef aquaria, are not well controlled, or even significantly impacted by such small water changes. In order to maintain them with no other supplements, changes on the order of 30-50% PER DAY would be required. Nevertheless, that option may still be a good choice for very small aquaria, especially if the changes are slow and automatic.

So quick to response But no reply?

[syrinx]

Because explaining chemistry to people with no idea of what it is and how it works is pointless.

[fishytoo]

Because explaining chemistry to people with no idea of what it is and how it works is pointless.

It is not pointless adding product that you don't know what the purity is requires you to change the water. Knowing what is being uptake by the corals needs to be replaced. Water changes are just a waste of time if you have a protein skimmer and macro to remove waste. Nothing else is needed if you keep your levels constant or unless you want to keep the supplier happy in buying something that makes you feel good in adding to the tank.

[syrinx]

There is nothing added to my tanks that requires the water to be changed. It is the fish and corals and other organics that require water changes. You say your levels are good- are you running a chromo or spectro on your water- or just testing certain parameters? Just because you are testing 20 diffrent parameters, doesn`t mean the ones you are not testing for do not exist. How are you testing for hormones? How are you testing for the unknowns that cause fish illnesses like LLE/HE? What waterborn bacterias are you testing for? What are all of your metal readings? Its quite easy for you to prove your point if you just provide the data from your tank now and then after doing a water change. Just get a proper lab to run the tests.

[fishytoo]

There is nothing added to my tanks that requires the water to be changed. It is the fish and corals and other organics that require water changes. You say your levels are good- are you running a chromo or spectro on your water- or just testing certain parameters? Just because you are testing 20 diffrent parameters, doesn`t mean the ones you are not testing for do not exist. How are you testing for hormones? How are you testing for the unknowns that cause fish illnesses like LLE/HE? What waterborn bacterias are you testing for? What are all of your metal readings? Its quite easy for you to prove your point if you just provide the data from your tank now and then after doing a water change. Just get a proper lab to run the tests.

I run oz3 to keep any bacteria’s down. If you think a 20% plus heavy metals would be reduced in a water change it maybe reduced slightly, however what spectrum of heavy metals are you referring to? And how did you obtain them thru supplements? It didn't happen on it's own. It must have been intorduced somehow.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So quick to response But no reply?

You posted that 34 minutes after you asked the question. :lol: Sorry, I have a life outside of reefing that sometimes requires my attention for as much as an hour at a time!!! Incredibly rude of me, isn't it. :D Nevertheless, I have found time to have answered tens of thousands of reef chemistry questions. Now it is tens of thousands plus 1. :)

I'm not going to argue whether water changes are needed or not. There are hundreds of such threads. I am simply addressing your stated reasons for not needing them, which I think are not justifiable reasons.

Run a chromatography on the water and the supplements (reagent).

I have actually analyzed supplements and read every salt mix analysis going. Of course they are not pure.

The fact is any supplement that is being introduced isn’t pure so of course you would need to change the water and reduce the unwanted components.

You believe that unwanted components only come from those sources? Why? What about foods? What about the calcium carbonate you use in your reactor? What about leaching from rock and sand? What about many types of organisms releasing organic matter? Eliminating additives will not eliminate the addition of everything that might build up.

I have analyzed the impurities that come from all sorts of sources, such as in this article:

Reef Aquaria with Low Soluble Metals
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-04/rhf/feature/index.php

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK, moving on from imports, we need to recognize that there are exports that also need to be dealt with, and without supplementing to replace them somehow, one may end up depleted in something that is important. Let's take some examples from your own suggestions:


Run macro with a protein skimmer on low and extract non benefit components from the tank.

Macroalgae take up many components from the water. Unless you are somehow replacing them, you may find that the macroalgae and possibly other organisms may slow their growth. Iron is an example. So is iodine. It can become rapidly depleted in tanks growing a lot of macroalgae, and supplements could solve that problem. How do you solve it?

Indicate to me what is being extracted in a 20% or larger water change

Well, that's easy. 20% of the built up organic matter and particulate detritus, 20% of the nitrate (if elevated), 20% of the phosphate (if elevated), etc. in the water column are all removed with a 20% water change with an appropriate salt mix. I show what that accomplishes over a year in many different chemicals in the article I posted so quickly but which you apparently did not think was a useful reply.

and what is being gained by introducing new salt water that cannot be added?
If you are against supplements, how do you propose to resupply things that may be depleted? Strontium, iodine, iron, silicate, certain nutrient metals, etc.? A water changes replaces them to some extent, assuming they are in the mix.

[syrinx]

I run oz3 to keep any bacteria’s down. If you think a 20% plus heavy metals would be reduced in a water change it maybe reduced slightly, however what spectrum of heavy metals are you referring to? And how did you obtain them thru supplements? It didn't happen on it's own. It must have been intorduced somehow.

You still have not provided what your water parameters are-provide the data to prove your theory.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It is not pointless adding product that you don't know what the purity is requires you to change the water.

Why do you think the need to do water changes is driven solely or even mostly by impurities in additives? Copper elevating in reef tanks is a reason, for example. Is it from additives? Maybe in part (FWIW, I don't use many additives), but foods contain it as well. A water change in my tank reduces copper levels back toward where I prefer them to be. :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

a protein skimmer on low

What do you believe that a skimmer removes? Only undesirable things?

What if it removes something you want? Like iron.

How can you get that back without any water changes or supplements? Foods? Maybe. Depends on how much of what.

Have you determined that your food additions and CaCO3/CO2 reactor provide back everything desirable that your macroalgae and skimmer removes? How did you determine that?

[fishytoo]

a protein skimmer on low

What do you believe that a skimmer removes? Only undesirable things?

What if it removes something you want? Like iron.

How can you get that back without any water changes or supplements? Foods? Maybe. Depends on how much of what.

Have you determined that your food additions and CaCO3/CO2 reactor provide back everything desirable that your macroalgae and skimmer removes? How did you determine that?

I am still trying to uderstand where the heavy metals came from. It didn't happen own its own.


If I wanted to sell salt and other supplements that are not pure I would recommend a water change, however the numbers are what the are and only removing toxins’ and adding what has been uptake is needed. You can spend money and go round and round. Prove me I am wrong and do some assay for support. I will be looking forward to the data.
.

[gary faulkner]

Not another one. :rolleyes:

LOL:spin2:

Next we will be feeding garlic to rid the tank of Ick.:bounce3:

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I am still trying to uderstand where the heavy metals came from. It didn't happen own its own.

Fish foods are a source.

From my article above in discussing copper (Table 2 is too hard to post here, so see the article):

Input of Metals: Foods


If the goal is to reduce metals, then looking at the foods that you feed can be important. It will be impossible to eliminate all additions of metals this way, because all marine-sourced materials contain significant amounts of metals that they absorbed when growing in the ocean. Some of these metals are used by the organisms involved, and some are just incidentally accumulated. Nevertheless, there are some things that you might consider when selecting foods if you want low metals.

It turns out that there has been a fair amount of study of many foods for certain metals because they impact human health in various ways. For healthy people looking to ingest adequate copper levels in food, the USDA recommends shellfish, among other things, because they have a naturally high level of copper and zinc.7,8 Some fish and shellfish may also be unusually high in many metals (including copper, zinc, cadmium, mercury, and lead) because of local pollution in the areas where they are harvested.9,10

People with Wilson's disease have problems dealing with elevated copper levels, and they need to restrict dietary copper. At a website designed for people with this condition is a table listing the copper levels in many foods, including many that we feed to our aquaria (Table 1).

Table 1. The copper concentrations present in certain shellfish.
Food
Copper Concentration (ppm wet)
Fish
0.61
Scallops
0.27
Clams
6.1
Crab
7.4
Shrimp
1.8
Oysters
2.9
Mussels
4.8
Lobster
37.0
From this table it is clear that one can select lower copper foods when shopping at the grocery store. Scallops and shrimp, for example, would be much better choices than clams, crab, or lobster. Also, the viscera of squid and crabs contain much more in the way of heavy metals than does muscle tissue.10 Over the course of a year, these contributions really add up. If you add 5 grams of each of the foods in Table 4 to a 100-gallon aquarium every day, the addition over a year amounts to 178 ppb of copper using lobster and 1.3 ppb of copper using scallops. For comparison, the amount of copper in the salt mixes described in Shimek's article1 as being high in metals are on the order of 100-200 ppb copper (but only 18 ppb copper in an earlier article2), and those low in copper were 1-40 ppb copper (for comparison, my aquarium using only Instant Ocean salt mix presently has 10-13 ppb copper). So obviously, the choice of foods can potentially make a big impact on the copper levels.

Many aquarists feed commercial foods to their aquaria, rather than fresh seafood. In a study of the amounts of different elements in certain foods,11 Shimek presented the results shown in Tables 2 and 3. While none of these foods appears as high in copper as lobster, lancefish is close and the differences between the various foods are significant. In these tables I have highlighted those values that stand out as unusually high in red and unusually low in green. Bear in mind that some of these foods contain substantial water, and so are naturally more "dilute." For that reason, I included the first line in each table that shows the calories/gram for each food. In this sense, it is easy to see that the "wet" foods are about 4-5 times less concentrated than the dry foods, so in looking at metals, their concentrations need to be multiplied by 4-5 to get equivalent values in terms of actual dosing.

Based on this metals analysis alone, and no other nutritional properties, the Tahitian Blend would seem to be a good overall choice if lower metals were a significant goal (However, Eric Borneman has indicated that Tahitian Blend is a plant material suspension that is of a particle size that will be unusable by many organisms (pers. comm.)). If we knew exactly what specific metal to be most concerned with, the choice might well be different.

[syrinx]

I refer to my first response- stop wasting your time randy. This gentleman will not even provide his tank parameters- much less any other data.

[fishytoo]

I am still trying to uderstand where the heavy metals came from. It didn't happen own its own.


If I wanted to sell salt and other supplements that are not pure I would recommend a water change, however the numbers are what the are and only removing toxins’ and adding what has been uptake is needed. You can spend money and go round and round. Prove me I am wrong and do some assay for support. I will be looking forward to the data.
.

If a tank is 150 gal and there is 20 percent water change what do you expect the outcome of the titration is in tds and components that you believe will be reduced? I just want the number so everybody knows. My determination isnt much.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If I wanted to sell salt and other supplements that are not pure I would recommend a water change, however the numbers are what the are and only removing toxins’ and adding what has been uptake is needed. You can spend money and go round and round. Prove me I am wrong and do some assay for support. I will be looking forward to the data.

If you read my article, you will see data on what is added in various ways. :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If a tank is 150 gal and there is 20 percent water change what do you expect the outcome of the titration is?

Uh, what? The numbers are what they are, as you like to say. A 20% water change will drop copper in that tank by up to 20%, assuming the tank water is elevated relative to the salt mix you start with. I KNOW that my tank water is elevated in copper relative to my starting salt mix, at least when I carefully tested both, so I know that a water change lowers copper in my system. :)

[fishytoo]

If I wanted to sell salt and other supplements that are not pure I would recommend a water change, however the numbers are what the are and only removing toxins’ and adding what has been uptake is needed. You can spend money and go round and round. Prove me I am wrong and do some assay for support. I will be looking forward to the data.

If you read my article, you will see data on what is added in various ways. :)

First copper should never be used in a reef tank It is clinically wrong. What needs to be uptaked and what is required to be exported is needed. A water change would not resolve any issues. All the levels need to be correct adding supplements may have an adverse problem do the the fact they are not pure and could cause more problems if that is the case.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Clinically wrong?

Not sure what you mean by clinically.

I assure you it is chemically correct. :)

FWIW, I have other matters to address (like sleeping), so I will have to suspend my end of the discussion until tomorrow. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your input. :)

[fishytoo]

Clinically wrong?

Not sure what you mean by clinically.

I assure you it is chemically correct. :)

FWIW, I have other matters to address (like sleeping), so I will have to suspend my end of the discussion until tomorrow. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your input. :)

clinically

Look it up. Where did you get you degree? The fact is what needs to be exported and what need to be uptaked is what is required. Spending for water changes doesn't do it. I sill want to know where you recieved you degree as a expert.

[fishytoo]

There is nothing added to my tanks that requires the water to be changed. It is the fish and corals and other organics that require water changes. You say your levels are good- are you running a chromo or spectro on your water- or just testing certain parameters? Just because you are testing 20 diffrent parameters, doesn`t mean the ones you are not testing for do not exist. How are you testing for hormones? How are you testing for the unknowns that cause fish illnesses like LLE/HE? What waterborn bacterias are you testing for? What are all of your metal readings? Its quite easy for you to prove your point if you just provide the data from your tank now and then after doing a water change. Just get a proper lab to run the tests.

What hormones should we be looking at.

[syrinx]

Until you begin to answer questions yourself- i will have to consider you to be trolling.

[gary faulkner]

Troll, no way. Troll party!!! :celeb1: :beer:

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

clinically

Look it up. Where did you get you degree?

You sure you want to go down that road? But I'll go if you go. :D

I got my BA in a double major of chemistry and biology from Cornell University. I got my PhD in chemistry from Harvard University.

I am VERY familiar with the word clinically, as I have invented several pharmaceuticals that were tested clinically and are used clinically in people. As in medical clinics, clinical trials, etc.

What I fail to see is what the word clinically has to do with water changes in an aquarium.

I sill want to know where you recieved you degree as a expert.

Beyond my degrees, and some additional course work in the chemistry of natural waters, I have self-taught myself marine chemistry, sufficient to have authored dozens of articles for reef hobbyists on the chemistry in their reef aquaria. They are listed here with links:

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102605

[FishNFun]

Zing! :beer:

[dbuesking]

73,180 posts to 68. You do the math:D

[syrinx]

But remember- fishy has experience too- he has one aquarium that han`t had a water change in a year. Freshwater experience is limited to the creek that flows under his bridge.

[gary faulkner]

Zing! :beer:

73,180 posts to 68. You do the math:D

But remember- fishy has experience too- he has one aquarium that han`t had a water change in a year. Freshwater experience is limited to the creek that flows under his bridge.

:lmao:

You guys are killing me.

[fishytoo]

clinically

Look it up. Where did you get you degree?

You sure you want to go down that road? But I'll go if you go. :D

I got my BA in a double major of chemistry and biology from Cornell University. I got my PhD in chemistry from Harvard University.

I am VERY familiar with the word clinically, as I have invented several pharmaceuticals that were tested clinically and are used clinically in people. As in medical clinics, clinical trials, etc.

What I fail to see is what the word clinically has to do with water changes in an aquarium.

I sill want to know where you recieved you degree as a expert.

Beyond my degrees, and some additional course work in the chemistry of natural waters, I have self-taught myself marine chemistry, sufficient to have authored dozens of articles for reef hobbyists on the chemistry in their reef aquaria. They are listed here with links:

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102605

I have been involved in many 510k trials. The word Clinically is in reference to the inhabitants and the observation there of. I didn't miss type.

The point being removing water and replacing it a 20% every week or month does not reduce toxins only to a small degree. Adding off the shelf supplements without knowning the purity is a unknown of what components that you don't want to introduce back in to the tank and would require that be removed again. There are ways around doing water changes that would leave the tank more stable.

I will concur that some foods may contain phoshates and should be tested prior to feeding.

[jimnrose]

Randy, thanks for your patience and volunteering your time to help us comprehend the chemical aspects of this hobby. Jim

[Gilby]

What does this matter? You don't want to do water changes, we get it. If you're trying to convince people that do water changes to stop doing them, It's not going to happen. We see too many benefits in doing them than not. Although I can't you what it removes or adds, if anything. I know that my tank prefers having the water change over not having it changed. We all have our own way of doing things. Every tank is different. Your tank does well with no water changes, good for you, but that may not work for other people. Just let it be. There's no need to try and discredit someones education or knowlege just because they believe in water changes. This is an arguement you WILL NOT win, I promise. Maybe when I start seeing frequent TOTMs that don't do water changes then I might consider it but for now it's what works for me and thousands of other people, so let it go.

[fishytoo]

What does this matter? You don't want to do water changes, we get it. If you're trying to convince people that do water changes to stop doing them, It's not going to happen. We see too many benefits in doing them than not. Although I can't you what it removes or adds, if anything. I know that my tank prefers having the water change over not having it changed. We all have our own way of doing things. Every tank is different. Your tank does well with no water changes, good for you, but that may not work for other people. Just let it be. There's no need to try and discredit someones education or knowlege just because they believe in water changes. This is an arguement you WILL NOT win, I promise. Maybe when I start seeing frequent TOTMs that don't do water changes then I might consider it but for now it's what works for me and thousands of other people, so let it go.

Work up a spreadsheet and factor what a water change of 20% water or another value works out to. Run the numbers over a period of time and show us the dilution amount in doing it to remove excess buildup and what is being a benefit to the new addition of water change. I will be looking forward in reviewing the data.

[m2434]

I will be looking forward in reviewing the data.

LMFAO No you won't :lol: You haven't even reviewed any of the data already provided :lolspin:

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The point being removing water and replacing it a 20% every week or month does not reduce toxins only to a small degree.

I presume you meant that it does reduce toxins only to a small degree.?

Yes, by exactly 20%.

Work up a spreadsheet and factor what a water change of 20% water or another value works out to.

Yes, I've done that extensively and published the results. It was linked in the third post of this thread. Did you check it out?

Here's a graph from it that is relevant for anything that is not also being continually added. You can clearly see that an impurity is dropped substantially. :)

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/images/Figure1sm.GIF

Figure 1. Nitrate concentration as a function of time when performing water changes of 0% (no changes), 7.5%, 15% and 30% of the total volume each month. In this example, nitrate is present at 100 ppm at the start, and is not added or depleted during the course of the year except via the water changes. The y-axis can alternatively be thought of as the percent of the original concentration remaining for any material that is not being added or depleted from the water except via the water change.



and this one shows what happens generally with something that is being added continually, as from foods, supplements, CaCO3 reactor inputs, etc. I used nitrate as an example, but the concentration of anything that starts high and is slowly added applies equally well:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/images/Figure3sm.GIF:


Figure 3. Nitrate concentration as a function of time when performing water changes of 0% (no changes), 7.5%, 15% and 30% of the total volume each month. In this example, nitrate is present at 100 ppm at the start, and is accumulated at a rate of 0.1 ppm per day when no water is changed.

[Gilby]

Work up a spreadsheet and factor what a water change of 20% water or another value works out to. Run the numbers over a period of time and show us the dilution amount in doing it to remove excess buildup and what is being a benefit to the new addition of water change. I will be looking forward in reviewing the data.

No, I'll let Mr. Randy Holmes-Farley take care of that. I would like to see your tank though.

[m2434]

No, because I'm not wasting my time. I would like to see your tank though.

I've been thinking about this and I think fishytoo may be correct actually. As he obviously lives in his own universe, it is incorrect for us to assume our laws of physics apply there.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Adding off the shelf supplements without knowning the purity is a unknown of what components that you don't want to introduce back in to the tank and would require that be removed again. There are ways around doing water changes that would leave the tank more stable.


I'm still not sure why you are harping on supplements as the only reason to need water changes. Or even the main one. I know the purity of some supplements. I've tested them (and also gathered published data) and published the results. I also know the impurities in foods and in CaCO3 reactor media. They too can be significant. I posted a link for you to read. Did you?

Which is more in my case? I expect foods are the biggest source for certain metals relative to what supplements I use. Organic toxins are either from foods or produced in the tank. Certainly not from my supplement (limewater).

I have been involved in many 510k trials. The word Clinically is in reference to the inhabitants and the observation there of. I didn't miss type.

I won’t debate the semantics. You edited your post containing the “clinically” comment after I already responded to it, so I won’t go chasing ghosts, whether imagined or misremembered.

[fishytoo]

The point being removing water and replacing it a 20% every week or month does not reduce toxins only to a small degree.

I presume you meant that it does reduce toxins only to a small degree.?

Yes, by exactly 20%.

Work up a spreadsheet and factor what a water change of 20% water or another value works out to.

Yes, I've done that extensively and published the results. It was linked in the third post of this thread. Did you check it out?

Here's a graph from it that is relevant for anything that is not also being continually added. You can clearly see that an impurity is dropped substantially. :)

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/images/Figure1sm.GIF

Figure 1. Nitrate concentration as a function of time when performing water changes of 0% (no changes), 7.5%, 15% and 30% of the total volume each month. In this example, nitrate is present at 100 ppm at the start, and is not added or depleted during the course of the year except via the water changes. The y-axis can alternatively be thought of as the percent of the original concentration remaining for any material that is not being added or depleted from the water except via the water change.



and this one shows what happens generally with something that is being added continually, as from foods, supplements, CaCO3 reactor inputs, etc. I used nitrate as an example, but the concentration of anything that starts high and is slowly added applies equally well:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/images/Figure3sm.GIF:


Figure 3. Nitrate concentration as a function of time when performing water changes of 0% (no changes), 7.5%, 15% and 30% of the total volume each month. In this example, nitrate is present at 100 ppm at the start, and is accumulated at a rate of 0.1 ppm per day when no water is changed.
You are making an assumption tank is on its own without a protein skimmer, macro and O3 and this would be the end point. Factor in the natural and mechanical effects. You still can’t not factor what is being introduced with a water change that is not helpful, do to the fact that you cannot account for the impurities of the products being added. Test kits should be used to determine where the problem is and what maybe missing. Not guessing a water change would resolve the problem. I am open to your response. Taking a ie 150 gal tank and reducing it by 20% per month with water and the next month you do the same your ppm’s of exchange are very little of unwanted components.

So if none of the mechanical and biological options are in place then you are correct. Who run’s a reef tank in a single loop without and mechanical or biological systems in place, only someone who will run into a problem and it is not even likely a water change would resolve the issues.

[fishytoo]

You are making an assumption tank is on its own without a protein skimmer, macro and O3 and this would be the end point. Factor in the natural and mechanical effects. You still can’t not factor what is being introduced with a water change that is not helpful, do to the fact that you cannot account for the impurities of the products being added. Test kits should be used to determine where the problem is and what maybe missing. Not guessing a water change would resolve the problem. I am open to your response. Taking a ie 150 gal tank and reducing it by 20% per month with water and the next month you do the same your ppm’s of exchange are very little of unwanted components.

So if none of the mechanical and biological options are in place then you are correct. Who run’s a reef tank in a single loop without and mechanical or biological systems in place, only someone who will run into a problem and it is not even likely a water change would resolve the issues.

Come on you are from Cornell and Harvard don’t put out something without factoring the potential unknowns. You must know there is some uncertainty that should be added to you math. You make it look so grave and that isn’t the case. Be logical and factor in all that is happening in an enclosed reef eco system.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You are making an assumption tank is on its own without a protein skimmer, macro and O3 and this would be the end point.

No, I only assumed nitrate is accumulating at the rate I stated. Instead of nitrate, this could be copper or anything else. Anything that accumulates in the absence of water changes is corrected as I stated. Whether from foods, supplements, or anything else. :)

[fishytoo]

You are making an assumption tank is on its own without a protein skimmer, macro and O3 and this would be the end point.

No, I only assumed nitrate is accumulating at the rate I stated. Instead of nitrate, this could be copper or anything else. Anything that accumulates in the absence of water changes is corrected as I stated. Whether from foods, supplements, or anything else. :)

Next time you find an absolute without uncertainties. I will be glad to interject. I have never seen something without any uncertainties, however your math doesn’t work for me and it shouldn’t be clear to you with your expertise.

[fishytoo]

Next time you find an absolute without uncertainties. I will be glad to interject. I have never seen something without any uncertainties, however your math doesn’t work for me and it shouldn’t be clear to you with your expertise.

I don't want to mislead anyone with a new tank. I am refuring to a mature tank which should not have any NITRATES. And the nitrites should not be a issue. And if you find copper, you need to know where that came from. In 20 years I have never had copper in the tank unless I introduce it in the 1980's.

[david1983]

Make the point without being an arse

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I have never seen something without any uncertainties, however your math doesn’t work for me and it shouldn’t be clear to you with your expertise.

YOU asked for results of a spreadsheet analysis of what typical water change can do.

That is EXACTLY what I did. EXACTLY the way I did it. I showed it.

Then you complain that it is too simple.

Sure, it is a simplification, as I make abundantly clear in the article. It is NOT intended to claim what nitrate level a tank will attain. It is and DOES show what water changes COULD accomplish relative to not doing those same changes in that same tank.

Case closed.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In 20 years I have never had copper in the tank unless I introduce it in the 1980's.

I guess you never added any food? All seafoods contain copper. All reef tanks and the ocean will also contain copper. You just didn't look with a adequately sensitive tools, if you could not detect any. There are no kits that test low enough to be useful in this regard.

[reefer ready]

Hi all,

This is an interesting thread. I have kept marine aquariums for almost 20 years. When I started in the early 90's I worked at a nice upscale aquarium store in Clearwater FL. My set up at home was a 55g tank with a 10g sump. Only a protien skimmer. A jaubert plenim, about 4 in of aragonite. All of evap water was replaced with kalkwauser water. And I dosed about 25% of the recommended amount of an all around trace element sup. Dont remember what. Never did water changes after the initial cycling. The tank exploded, wish I had pics! I was young then. Everything did well, kept clams, acros, mont, stylophora, lpss, softies, mushrooms, ect. Coraline exploded, was plating off itself. It was the easiest tank. I moved after 3.5 yrs. and got a different tank and set up.

I should say I new 3 other brilliant aquarists that had almost the exact same set up, different size tanks though. All amazing results.

FFwd 20 yrs, I have a 65 with a 20 sump. Skimmer, no jaubert. top off with kalkwauser. I do a water change every week, 5 gallons its easy. Siphon out open gravel spots, rocks ect. Tank pars are great. Corals, fish are great.

I will say this, back then we did not keep as many fish in a tank, or feed them as much.
Now I keep 10 fish and feed them well. It seems this method requires the water changes. I siphon out amazing amounts of detrirus, food, ect. I am starting to think this method of feeding yields an unstable water chemestry. Or has a greater potential for instability. And then the water changes make it more unstable. What I mean is a sudden jump from one point to another, as far as ph, dkh, temp, ect. that comes with a water change. But who knows. Lots of unknowns.

I think that certain parameters need to reach high levels for certain biological processes to kick in and counter act. That doesnt get a chance to happen with weekly water changes.

Fishy Two, I would like to know what you recommend to remove excess detritus, food, ect. In place of water changes.

The only thing I can see is an extreme amount of flow in the aquarium rendering every particle suspended. Then a prefilter, skimmer, dsb, and ref. would have a shot at it. But the corals wouldn't like it. Not the amount of flow, it wouldn't allow for nice polyp extension, softies would hate it. Maybe bump the flow in the middle of night for a period of time.

Thanks Sean

[syrinx]

In 20 years I have never had copper in the tank unless I introduce it in the 1980's.

I guess you never added any food? All seafoods contain copper. All reef tanks and the ocean will also contain copper. You just didn't look with a adequately sensitive tools, if you could not detect any. There are no kits that test low enough to be useful in this regard.

This is the key randy- he is worried about the unknowns in the additives he thinks we use-yet is not worried about the unknowns in his own system organic or otherwise. He sees ammonia,nitrie,nitrate,phos,and kh-ca as the only components of a system. As a previous poster has stated- he has substituted his own reality for the one the rest of us dwell in.

[fishytoo]

In 20 years I have never had copper in the tank unless I introduce it in the 1980's.

I guess you never added any food? All seafoods contain copper. All reef tanks and the ocean will also contain copper. You just didn't look with a adequately sensitive tools, if you could not detect any. There are no kits that test low enough to be useful in this regard.

I asked for a spreadsheet in the real world not one that composes of one item that is usually happens in a new tank. And you didn't provide any uncertainly in you chart. I am not sure how you optained your degree or did you studies. It wouldn't be something I would present.

If you want to be smart about food then we can run studies on that. However you are missing the point. My point is adding supplements without any COA (and I hope you know what that means from all you studies an developments that you have completed). Aas far as exporting, redo your graph. If 20% of water is removed and fresh is added then some time later 20% is removed again. DO the math what is the reduction????

[tkeracer619]

Fishytoo I would like to see a pic of your tank.

You are demanding of essays and charts. They were provided. A simple photo can't be too much trouble to ask.

Without the photo your just trolling.

DO the math what is the reduction????

YOU do the math AND YOU show us. You started the topic but have not added anything other then troll.

[syrinx]

still waiting for your parameters- can you give nothing while randy gives all? I can tell you are not unbad with fish, so let us see your setup. So far your about as useful to the no water change debate as a duck with a slide whistle.

[bayoupr]

Lets see some pictures!!!!

[bearpeidog]

Fishytoo = OWNED!!!!

[fishytoo]

still waiting for your parameters- can you give nothing while randy gives all? I can tell you are not unbad with fish, so let us see your setup. So far your about as useful to the no water change debate as a duck with a slide whistle.

I can give you my numbers. Is it meaningful?

I run a show tank of 144gal and have a sump of 150gal. The skimmer is 2 gal which I run low with O3 the macro is 2' x 2" about 6” thick. Hey if you want to do water changes and buy whatever supplements it is up to you. My results it isn't necessary and causes more instability.

I am out. I said what is needed. It is up to you to make a decision.
I don't need someone to profess what is needed.


I can do my own math to the befit of water changes.

But others can't do the math correctly and add uncertainty and what you profess doesn't work with that data you provided.


E=mc2

[rtbm]

this one is starting to hurt a little. I don't think I can read any more.

[Gilby]

I am out.

Yes you are! SEE YA!
I warned you a few posts ago. Just let it go. You're not going to win this argument pal.:fun2:

[chris88]

I feel like this thread went in circles with no end in mind. We all know there are many ways to keep a reef, no water changes, lots of water changes, different lights, filtration, supplementation, etc. I just don't see what the point is to get so harsh about an opinion. I think the only real winner here is randy because he kept his input professional and about the facts, while fishytoo was just trying to personally attack people. I love debates but it has to stay about the facts and nothing else.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

We all know there are many ways to keep a reef, no water changes, lots of water changes, different lights, filtration, supplementation, etc.

I agree. It is certainly clear that one can keep a nice tank with no water changes. I just don't think it optimal, but it can be done. That question is one that can really only be answered with trying it and showing the results. It can not be answered hypothetically with math or chemistry or biology.

If you want to be smart about food then we can run studies on that.

We could, yes. Or we could read the ones I've posted in this thread and in the linked articles that already have been done by lots of folks.

If 20% of water is removed and fresh is added then some time later 20% is removed again. DO the math what is the reduction????

That is what I showed. 20% the first time. 20% of what remains the second time...


I can do my own math to the befit of water changes.

But others can't do the math correctly and add uncertainty and what you profess doesn't work with that data you provided.

I have trouble understanding what you imagine doing with a spreadsheet that I didn't do, but I'd be very happy to see it if you post it. :)

I am not sure how you optained your degree or did you studies.

If you want to find out, you can read the published papers that constituted my PhD thesis. I'd suggest that could be a worthwhile exercise for you before continuing to bash me by criticizing things you no nothing about.

[zaheda]

I think we have to name one of the reefkeeping methods after you, Fishytoo method. There is many like the Jaubert and Berlin, skimmerless, and than the Fishytoo. You can be also the expert adviser to many people on the forum. First like David Saxby says to see someones tank before seeking advise from him. So like others say lets see your setup or is it all talk. Randy is well respected person who has written many articles for the hobby. You running just one tank and base your facts on that tank. Do you have any degrees behind you and where did you study man.

[lisafoster]

Ughh This gives me a headache. So far Randy has given you spread sheets and articles and years of study to back up the point he is making. All I have seen from fisytoo is personal attacks on someone who generously gives his time to answer all the many questions reefers have about the complex chemistry questions on reefkeeeping. I am glad to have his expertise on a subject that most times makes my head swim in confusion. Until you come up with some kind of studies that you have done to support your theories you are just babbling. Not to mention some pics of your set up.